LAWS(ALL)-1959-1-11

NIRANKAR PRASAD Vs. DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES

Decided On January 23, 1959
NIRANKAR PRASAD Appellant
V/S
DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by a student of the Government Technical Institute, Lucknow, praying for the quashing of certain. letters written by the Joint Director of Industries, U. P. Kanpur in which that Officer refused his request for being declared successful in the examination for the diploma in the Mechanical and Engineering Course. The petitioner also prays for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Director of Industries and the other respondents to declare him successful in the aforesaid examination. The petition is supported by an affidavit sworn by the petitioner himself. He makes the following allegations. After having passed the High School Examination in 1951, he joined Mechanical Engineering Training class in the Government Technical Institute, Lucknow in 1954. There is a three years course of study for this diploma which is awarded after the student is successful in the final examination. The petitioner passed the examination at the end of the first year in 1955 and the second year in 1956. He appeared in the final examination in 1957 and claims that, according to the rules framed by the Government, he obtained the minimum marks required for being placed among the successful candidates in the Third Division. A table of his marks is attached to the petitioner's affidavit as Annexure 'A.' I shall examine the mark sheet in some detail hereafter, but it will be sufficient at this stage to note that he claims to have obtained 55 per cent marks in the aggregate, and more than 33 per cent in individual subjects except two in which he secured more than 25 per cent. Thus, according to him, he secured a Second Division standard in the aggregate but less than 33 though more than 25 per cent in two subjects. He contends that under Rule 16 of the Examination Rules framed by the Government for the regulation of the examination of Government Technical and Industrial Institutions and Government aided Institutions in Uttar Pradesh, he was entitled to be declared successful in the Third Division. The result of the final examination was published in June, 1957, and the petitioner's name was not included in the list of successful candidates. In July he applied for a scrutiny of his marks, which was refused. He made a representation to the Minister of Industries on 8-10-1957, and received a letter from the Joint Director of Industries dated 18th November in which he was informed that he had unmistakably failed and that nothing could be done in his case. On 8-8-1958, he was informed that his representation to the Government had been rejected and he could not be declared successful. Aggrieved by the decision of the authorities concerned, he has come to this court for relief.

(2.) The petition is opposed by the respondents and a counter affidavit has been filed which is sworn by Om Prakash Bajaj described as an examination Assistant in the Directorate of Industries (Technical Education Section), Kanpur. It is admitted that the petitioner was placed in the list of candidates who had failed in the Annual Examination, but this decision is justified on the following grounds. It is conceded by the State that rules nave been framed for the purpose of conducting the examination. The existence of Rules 6 and 16 which are relied upon by the petitioner is also admitted in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit. But it is contended that Rule No. 6 of the Examination Rules is not applicable to the petitioner's case, "because according to the rules 'course-marks are taken into account only for the purpose of determining of Division and not for the purpose of passing." It is further pointed out that the petitioner himself knew that course-marks obtained by a candidate were added to his total marks only for determining his Division and not to enable him to pass the examination. Reliance is placed by the respondents on two letters written by him to the Joint Director of Industries which have been attached to the counter affidavit as Annexures 'B' and 'C' respectively. In the first letter the petitioner wrote, "I know that course-marks are not counted for passing but are counted only for Division." I shall refer to these letters hereafter. At this stage it is sufficient to note that respondents relied on these letters to prove that the petitioner has no real grievance on the score that he has been declared unsuccessful under rules, of which he was fully aware.

(3.) The entire controversy centres round the question whether the petitioner is entitled to add course-marks to his aggregate of marks in the annual examination. The phrase "course marks" requires elucidation. It appears that a record of practical and theoretical work done by a student in each year is maintained by the Head of the institution, He is regularly marked by the teachers concerned according to the quality of his work in class. At the close of the year all the marks obtained by the student are counted. All this happens before the annual examination takes place. The marks for practical and theoretical work in class are called "course-marks.'' These are taken into account for declaring the results of that year, in accordance with Rule 4 of the Examination Rules.